delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 05:29:16PM -0500, Mumit Khan wrote: >Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> writes: >> I'm close to getting libcygwin.a linked to libc.a but I was wondering if >> it should also be linked to libm.a. > >Absolutely. Anything else is a potential source of future confusion. >The only reason it would make sense to link it (as opposed to leaving >it out completely) is because various software package expect -lm to >work. That's the reason I distribute a dummy libm.a, but can't link >due to lack of native symlinks. So, what do you think? Should we just provide a dummy libc.a and libm.a? I think that it will be clearer what's going on if there is a symbolic link, won't it? Otherwise, we'll be getting messages like: "My libc.a is only 14 bytes. I think that's why I'm getting syntax errors in my source file." Anyway, thanks for the patch. I'll apply it ASAP. cgf
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |